Re: Google please assign this group a moderator

"Spaceman" <spaceman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:KtmdnRG8_I2HMe_VnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx
Noke wrote:
But it is reality. Particle accelerators, GPS, etc. apply
relativity. At the smallest scale and fastest velocity,
things are pretty distorted. Here, QM and relativity rule.
You just happen to be born in a small window where
newtonian laws is valid. This doesn't mean it is valid
all the way to smallest scale and fastest velocity.
This is simple common sense. Why can't you go on
terms with it???

Particle accelerators would not work at all
if Newtons was not mostly if not all correct.

Incorrect. Relativity entirely subsumes and supercedes
Newton.

and nothing about a particle accelerator proves Newton incorrect.

Wrong. Almost everything about particle accelerators
proves Newton incorrect. But you've had this explained
to you on multiple occasions. For some reason you're
incapable of absorbing it.

GPS actually provides a massive problem for relativity,
because it actually uses absolutes to find absolutes in the long
run so if anything "again" it needs Newtons absolutes thinking.

Wrong. GPS must use relativistic corrections or it
would be terribly inaccurate. GPS clocks are
corrected to keep time with a chosen time system
(which itself is corrected for local relativistic
effects, too).


The smallest scales work fine with Newton,
It is just a matter of finding all the newtonian forces
that apply, the only reason it fails is when some sort
of Newtonian force was left out of the equation.

Looking for magic boojums to fix a demonstrably incorrect
theory is silly when a better theory works fine without
imaginary fairies and goblins to hold it together.
There is possible combination of new forces that can
emulate observed quantum effects.

I have a feeling that reasons can't penetrate, hostility
of physics runs too deep in your blood. So you end up as
newtonian cultists. Cant you see it?

Hostility towards physics?
You got that 100% wrong,
You see, I want physics to again provide physical causes
for effects like Newton has done.

Newton never provided ultimate physical causes. He
always knew where to draw the line between science
and philosophy.

but poor old Relativity lacks it completely.
Relativity has not one physical cause for any of the effects
it describes.

Neither has Newton (or any other phsyical theory for
that matter). There is no *reason* for action at a
distance, or for inertia, or for things to have mass.

Also. If relativists dig for einstenian religion.. you guys are
newtonian cultists.

Unfortunately. Experimental proof goes in the company
of the religious relativists so you newtonian cultists lose,
in light of quantum mechanics even more stranger foundation.

Ponder on it hanson and driscoll. Even weirder physics is to
come when the Large Hadron Collider goes online in August. Be
prepared or be left behind in the medieval ages.

If you truly believe relativity has found even one physical cause
you are only fooling yourself and joined the religion blindly.

What, in your mind, makes you think that science looks
for "physical cause"? It looks for models that work.
Philosophers are the ones who look for reasons why.

Newtons "science" explains each and every effect with
"physical causes".

No, it most certainly does not. "Hypotheses non fingo",
Newton wrote in the preface to his Principia, that is,
"I will propose no hypotheses", referring to *how* or
*why* the action at a distance gravitational force could
work.

Newton never proposed a reason *why* things have mass,
or *why* they have inertia, or *why* inertial mass is
the same as gravitational mass. All these things were
just defined to be so (postulates) and the theory
developed from there.

Special Relativity just adds another simple postulate,
namely the constancy of the speed of light as measured
in any inertial frame of reference. Everything else
follows naturally.

That hardly puts it in a religious state such as relativity
at all.

There is very little difference, fundamentally, between
Newtonian theory and Relativity theory. Both are based
upon otherwise unfounded postulates.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why relativists dont understand Einsteins 1905 mathematics.
    ... or 415 orbits of Mercury which orbits the Sun every 88 days. ... Then, says the remorseless logic, he didn't use "Relativity" ... Einstein was taught classical physics and never ... Newton Cambridge, Trinity College, May 8, 1686" ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins logic
    ... newton argued against any ether. ... >> consistent with relativity. ... > It is by definition the difference between physics and metaphysics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: basic question classical v. relativity
    ... Uncle Al wrote: ... >> relativity seems to claim that you can't ... And if Newton did know this, ... > Newtonian physics tacitly assumes lightspeed is infinite. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Principle of equivalence
    ... Newton believed the same thing, ... the laws of physics that the principle of relativity applies to. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Wonderful fiction
    ... That's what Einstein's relativity theories ... Portraying science fiction as a human ... of an aether/medium that Newton called 'absolute space'. ... "The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space ...
    (soc.culture.irish)